Congressman: Search only the scary brown people

[shibumiseeker]

Nice non-response.

Actually it was quite spot on. How can you profile someone if you don't know what they look like?

Mind you, I'm not making the argument that profiling doesn't or can't work, my primary argument is that violating the civil rights of some people by not treating them equally in the eyes of the law is not something I want the government doing.

The secondary argument I was making earlier in this thread which conveniently gets ignored is that when you make it harder for the obvious looking guy to do it, he then turns and tries to recruit the guy or gal who isn't so obvious.

I mean, lets say you were a stockbroker, nice clean cut kinda guy wearing a suit, you find out you have cancer and the SEC was investigating you for fraud and you were near bankrupt. Now, if someone came up and offered a million bucks for your family if you'd try to smuggle a bomb on board, can you honestly tell me that at least a few of them wouldn't turn it down?

What about grandma in the wheelchair who has three months left to live and the bank is foreclosing on her kid's house?

Or how about a felon who has turned his life around but still can't get a job because of his prior felony and his wife and kid are out on the street because he can't support them?

 

[firehawk1]

really? I didn't see any posts describing what they "look like", only who they are.

It's all from the same old worn out playbook. If they can't/won't dispute your opinion/statement you are labeled a racist.

Kind of like what we see everyday with President Obama. While there are some bigots around, most could care less about the man's skin color when they disagree with him. It's his policies that are being disagreed with but apparently if you voice those opinions you are labeled a racist because they cannot present a viable counter argument.

Can't counter the argument.... pull the racist card. And THAT is nothing more than an attempt to silence you, and deny you your 1st Ammendment rights. I/we have a right to free speech, I/we have no right protecting us from being offended.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Can't counter the argument.... pull the racist card. And THAT is nothing more than an attempt to silence you, and deny you your 1st Ammendment rights. I/we have a right to free speech, I/we have no right protecting us from being offended.

Oh please, this is just as tired and worn out a response.

 

[rambone]

I'm surprised you'd ask me that, based on the majority of my posts on this board. I'm a very frim believer that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, means what it says to the letter, and needs no interpretation whatsoever.

I generally think we are on the same page with things.

That being said, deflecting from the fact that members of a certain religion still have a bug up their anal sphincter about wars waged by the pope a freaking millenia ago, and think that the entire world must subnit to their teachings or be beheaded if they don't have no place in modern humanity.

They don't have to look back a millenia, there are plenty of modern wars to be upset about. The U.S. is perpetuating radical outbursts by invading everyone's countries.

Also, you attack the source, but not the veracity of the number cited. Why is that?

I just have to ask, what is their goal? Is it to protect the 4th Amendment? End checkpoints? Protect civil rights? Shrink government? End wars? Eliminate gun-free-zones?

Nope.

They want to keep everyone wetting their pants over scary brown people. Keep the sheep bleating for more security.

I don't believe in punishing enormous groups of people for individual actions. We are supposedly a society that values individualism. So punish individuals for individual crimes. Don't treat everyone like criminals.

Probable Cause or a warrant... these are justifications to search someone. Not "Traveling While Brown." Being arab isn't probable cause of a crime. Lumping people together like this is extremely dangerous. Soon it could be happening to us.

 

[firehawk1]

Oh please, this is just as tired and worn out a response.

Really, how so?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Really, how so?

Because it's just as often used by people to justify their own racism or bigotry.

 

[firehawk1]

Really. Otherthan the OP, I don't recall anyone bringing up race or skin color. The problem is NOT about someone's race at all, it IS about a small minority of lunatics that follow the teachings of the Muslim faith.

Lunatic Muslims come in all colors, as do lunatics from any religion. People desiring bringing a little common sense into the mix have been labeled as racist in this thread. Again, NO ONE has said anything about skin color other than the OP.

Is YOUR answer to the current problem being discussed just to arm everyone too? Hell let's just not worry about any of this anymore and accept the loss of any life as an acceptable percentage. Your free right... free to die because no one wants to confront the problem, and as of RIGHT NOW the overwhelming threat is coming from radical lunatics of the Muslim faith. Not grandma, baby Jane, or McVieghy types.

It has become as stupid as the scene in Airplane 2 where they had grandma up against the wall while letting the guys with RPG's walk right thru. Who knew the Zucker brothers would be prophets.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Lunatic Muslims come in all colors, as do lunatics from any religion.

This I've never disputed. The people I see as racist and bigoted are those who then say that ALL of those people are lunatics and need to be given the hairy eyeball. And there are PLENTY of people who think this in this thread.

There's also PLENTY of people in this thread who think that all Arabs are Muslim or terrorists. There are PLENTY of people in this thread who would be perfectly happy to see anyone who doesn't look like them or their family undergo much greater scrutiny or not be allowed to fly, or indeed, just get the hell out of the country.

Yeah, it can make it difficult for those of us who try to have a reasonable, common sense discussion about how security can be implemented without trampling on the civil rights of one group of people based on race, religion, or ethnicity. The "politically correct" label is also just as much about trying to dismiss concerns or arguments without actually thinking about what those arguments are saying.

Yeah, I'm one of those folks who think that giving up freedom for the illusion of security is counter to what this country is about. I feel that those who are perfectly happy to give the government greater and greater control and intrusion over their lives are the folks who are being foolish.

 

[Redemption]

just get the hell out of the country.

^^^^This

 

[RockofStrength]

Really. Otherthan the OP, I don't recall anyone bringing up race or skin color. The problem is NOT about someone's race at all, it IS about a small minority of lunatics that follow the teachings of the Muslim faith.

Lunatic Muslims come in all colors, as do lunatics from any religion. People desiring bringing a little common sense into the mix have been labeled as racist in this thread. Again, NO ONE has said anything about skin color other than the OP.

Is YOUR answer to the current problem being discussed just to arm everyone too? Hell let's just not worry about any of this anymore and accept the loss of any life as an acceptable percentage. Your free right... free to die because no one wants to confront the problem, and as of RIGHT NOW the overwhelming threat is coming from radical lunatics of the Muslim faith. Not grandma, baby Jane, or McVieghy types.

It has become as stupid as the scene in Airplane 2 where they had grandma up against the wall while letting the guys with RPG's walk right thru. Who knew the Zucker brothers would be prophets.

The question is, what is more important: the rights of the people that are under the protection of the Constitution or your peace and security.

I do not deny that radical Muslims destroy much of what I hold dear, or at least they want to, but I fail to see how tearing down the place for them helps matters. Profiling certain "types" of people in order to justify invasions of privacy, instigate searches and seizures etc will destroy what this nation exists to preserve. All in the name of peace and security.

Arming people lets them deal with their own safety. It lets them see the limits of how safe a situation can really be instead of permitting them to hide behind their big bad government protector who is in fact more dangerous than the outside threat it's meant to repel.

Your ideal of safety has not even been considered within the realms of reason until very recently in history, and frankly it still is impossible in reality to create such security. We simply have the technological wizardry to give the illusion of safety, which tends to deter the less determined dregs but does little to halt zealous nutjobs. There is a percentage of them who will get through, there are a percentage of people who will die, and since this is reality and we have to confront these facts yes I do accept a given loss as a reasonable percentage. We should do everything in our power to lower that reasonable percentage except destroy the very point of living: freedom, the right to actually live without looking over your shoulder just because you fit certain "suspicious" criteria.

I don't mean to sound as if I think you're living in a fantasy world, because I rather doubt that you are. However, I think what you're asking for here is impossible and the results you are seeking are fantastic.

 

[firehawk1]

Of course the Constitution is the most important. Life is always going to full of risk, I understand and accept that. Life is also unfair at times and THAT needs to understood and accepted too. Always has, and always will be. There are humans involved.

I understand both sides of this discussion, but to follow some logic put forth here... I'm tired of being singled out everytime a woman is raped. Just because I am a male. It's unfair, and only looking for males when this happens is a violation of my rights. "They" are profiling my gender. Heck anyone can rape someone, why is it only males that are singled out? I am guarrented "life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, how can I be happy, or is it fair when I am singled out simply because of my gender? Where the hell is the ACLU on this!

I am NOT trying to make light of rape here, it is a terrible thing but do you see my point? Profiling happens everyday, and just picking out this one example, ie possible threats seems kind of selective to me. COMMON SENSE tells law enforcement to look for only males in rape cases. Common sense should also tell you or at least assist you in making intelligent decisions concerning possible threats to our country. While anyone can blow themselves up, the undenyable #1 threat as of now is radical muslim lunatics. Not saying "brown" people at all, or even all Muslims as that would be a rather ignorant blanket statement.

I just cannot understand why it seems to be so hard to accept the obvious. Why do we keep ignoring the elephant in the room? You deal first with the most dangerous threat, while keeping an eye on all the others.

 

[RockofStrength]

Except that in that case we are not talking about looking for a possible rapist before he ever rapes a woman, but rather seeking a rapist who has already committed the crime. Most rape cases figure that a man was the perpetrator based upon the limiting factor of, uh, the anatomy required in order to commit the act. That is not profiling, that is limiting the possible suspects based on good solid logic.


Airport security, on the other hand, is a preventative measure, not a justice-seeking one. While I would hope that the government would treat slave A and slave B the same based on race, they do have to appeal to the proles and throw them their "we're totally not racist" bone or they get uppity.

I'm just not all that concerned with improving a practice that is, at it's foundation, flawed. You can't make perfect a structure that is always broken from it's base, and in this case a fair and balanced checkpoint would only be a fair and balanced destruction of our rights.

 

[rambone]

I just cannot understand why it seems to be so hard to accept the obvious. Why do we keep ignoring the elephant in the room? You deal first with the most dangerous threat, while keeping an eye on all the others.

The biggest threat is the War on Terror itself. If you discard the Bill of Rights, then America is dead. Throw away essential liberties, and there is nothing left protect. The "terrorists" got what they wanted. Congress took away all that is precious in order to give us false security. We lose. The end.

There must be probable cause to search a person. If people feel threatened by the existence of radicals around the world, they should arm themselves.

 

[88GT]

Israel would disagree that profiling doesn't work, on the contrary, it seems to work quite well for them.

Yeah except Israelis have no constitution and government observes none of their rights. Government searches people anytime and does anything that it wants to. Checkpoints on the streets to disarm you. Sounds real nice, if you like being a slave.

Good God, you like to exaggerate. You also like to make connections on the flimsiest of points. Profiling =/= Constitutional violation. It's an analytical action, nothing more, nothing less. The point is that Israel's efforts work, based on their (non)hijack rate. And they don't have to violate any rights to do it.

How can you profile someone if you don't know what they look like?

This is rhetorical, right?

Here's the problem: profiling based on physical attributes is sound, but only if you approach it from the proper logical basis. It would be incorrect and logically unsound to say that a majority of Arabs/Middle Eastern-looking individuals have perpetrated horrible acts of violence against us. But it would not be incorrect to say that the majority of people who have perpetrated acts of violence against us have been Arab/Middle Eastern-looking. And only if one realizes the inherent limited use of that conclusion. Being Arab/Middle Eastern-looking isn't enough, but it's the best starting point because it's the group with the highest statistical risk associated with it.

The bottom line is that security efforts have limited time and resources. Common sense dictates they spend those limited resources where they will have the highest likelihood of tangible results. And statistics aren't telling us to go after grannies and little children, nor are they telling us to go after caucasians or asians.

Anyone who wants to argue against racial profiling by suggesting that the perpetrators make up such a small portion of the total of <insert identifying factor of choice> is looking at it from the wrong vantage point.

In simpler terms: I eat shellfish. About 10% of my shellfish meals result in intestinal disruption. But 99% of my total intestinal issues occur after eating shellfish. Is anyone really going to argue that shellfish aren't the problem?

Until we start seeing the use of white grannies or asian babies, I don't have a problem with focusing on the ones historically responsible for the violence: and that means Muslims of Arab descent with stereotypical "Middle Eastern" features.

 

[Garb]

We wouldn't need to have this argument if the TSA were abolished, and the ridiculous parts of the civil rights bill were repealed. Let the airports do what they want, and stay the hell out of it. It maximizes freedom for everyone involved.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm surprised you'd ask me that, based on the majority of my posts on this board. I'm a very frim believer that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, means what it says to the letter, and needs no interpretation whatsoever. That being said, deflecting from the fact that members of a certain religion still have a bug up their anal sphincter about wars waged by the pope a freaking millenia ago, and think that the entire world must subnit to their teachings or be beheaded if they don't have no place in modern humanity. Playing politically correct and not calling a spade a spade does everyone involved a grave disservice.

Also, you attack the source, but not the veracity of the number cited. Why is that?

You can't be, or you don't quite understand why the Constitution was drafted. Let's say that the majority of Muslims ARE head chopping, IED planting, raving lunatics... the Constitution is still meant to protect that small minority of "good" Muslims from governmental/societal oppressions. As long as there is ONE single good Muslim, his rights should not.... no, shall not be infringed because of the others. Lumping a "good" person in with the "bad" because they share the same religion, runs afoul of everything the founders intended.

To give you a historical perspective, plenty of "good" Japanese-Americans were lumped in with the "bad" (Japanese nationals living in Japan) during WW2. These people were relocated to Oklahoma and Arkansas, lost their businesses, and were place under guard in camps. Then, not many opposed FDR's actions. Now, we know that it was a terrible thing. How far are you willing to go with profiling simply because of a shared religion? How much liberty are you willing to take from others so that you sleep comfortable in your bed.... and how long do you think it will be until it's you..... gun owner... being profiled because of the group you belong too has fallen out of favor (good or not)?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Because it's just as often used by people to justify their own racism or bigotry.

I must be racist and bigoted then

 

[Garb]

and how long do you think it will be until it's you..... gun owner... being profiled because of the group you belong too has fallen out of favor (good or not)?

Whoops... too late...

 

[rambone]

To give you a historical perspective, plenty of "good" Japanese-Americans were lumped in with the "bad" (Japanese nationals living in Japan) during WW2. These people were relocated to Oklahoma and Arkansas, lost their businesses, and were place under guard in camps. Then, not many opposed FDR's actions. Now, we know that it was a terrible thing. How far are you willing to go with profiling simply because of a shared religion? How much liberty are you willing to take from others so that you sleep comfortable in your bed.... and how long do you think it will be until it's you..... gun owner... being profiled because of the group you belong too has fallen out of favor (good or not)?

This is a concern of mine as well. I won't stand by and watch my government fill up concentration camps. We'd be silly to think that it can't happen... again. Hell, the government already created a "Muslim Registration" after 9/11. We have to stop these shenanigans immediately.

Concentration camps are not compatible with liberty.

 

[Phil502]

What cracks me up is that some people on here pull out the race card pretty easily, there should be a jackass card to pull for them.